Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and NSC Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby[1]

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and NSC Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby[1]

AUGUST 04, 2022•PRESS BRIEFINGS

So, additionally, as you have — you might seen — you have might seen, the People’s Republic of China launched 11 ballistic missiles towards Taiwan.

To speak on this and other foreign policy news of the day, National Security Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby is here to join with — join me today.  And he’ll take over and take your questions.

Go ahead.

MR. KIRBY.  Thank you, Karine.  Good afternoon.

As Karine alluded and I’m sure all of you have covered, overnight, the People’s Republic of China launched an estimated 11 ballistic missiles towards Taiwan, which impacted to the northeast, the east, and southeast of the island.

We condemn these actions, which are irresponsible and at odds with our longstanding goal of maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and in the region.

China has chosen to overreact and use the Speaker’s visit as a pretext to increase provocative military activity in and around the Taiwan Strait.

We anticipated that China might take steps like this.  In fact, I described them for you in quite some detail just the other day — Monday.  We also expect that these actions will continue and that the Chinese will continue to react in coming days.

The United States is prepared for what Beijing chooses to do.  We will not seek, nor do we want, a crisis.  At the same time, we will not be deterred from operating in the seas and the skies of the Western Pacific, consistent with international law, as we have for decades, supporting Taiwan and defending a free and open Indo-Pacific.

To that end, Secretary Austin today has directed that the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan and the ships in her strike group will remain on station in the general area to monitor the situation.

We will conduct standard air and maritime transits through the Taiwan Strait in the next few weeks, consistent, again, with our longstanding approach to defending freedom of the seas and international law.

And we will take further steps to demonstrate our commitment to the security of our allies in the region, and that includes Japan.

Beijing’s actions are of concern to Taiwan, to us, to partners around the world.  You probably saw the G7, yesterday, rejected Beijing’s attempt to coerce and intimidate Taiwan, which is a leading democracy.

The nations of ASEAN also released a statement overnight about the importance of de-escalating tensions in the Taiwan Strait.  And today, the Japanese government reported that five PRC missiles landed in their Exclusive Economic Zone, noting their grave concern — another example of how China’s actions are undermining peace and security in the region.

Now, we’re going to continue to communicla- — communicate closely with our partners around the world, which we have demonstrated over and over again is a strength of this administration.

Beijing’s provocative actions are a significant escalation in its longstanding attempt to change the status quo.  As just one example, over the past two years the PRC has more than doubled the number of aircraft that they have flown over the center line that separates China and Taiwan as compared to the fir- — to the time period between 2016-2020.  And Beijing has pursued economic coercion, political interference, and cyberattacks against Taiwan, all of which erode the cross-Strait status quo.

The United States will be resolute but also steady and responsible.  We do not believe it is in our interest, Taiwan’s interest, the region’s interest to allow tensions to escalate further, which is why a long-planned Minuteman III ICBM test scheduled for this week has been rescheduled for the near future.

As China engages in destabilizing military exercises around Taiwan, the United States is demonstrating instead the behavior of a responsible nuclear power by reducing the risks of miscalculation and misperception.

We will continue to demonstrate transparency in our U.S. ballistic missile tests through timely notifications.  That’s a practice that China has often rejected.  Rescheduling this test will not in any way — not in any way — impact the modernization, the readiness, or the reliability of America’s safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent.  And the test will happen.  It will be rescheduled for the near future.

I want to reiterate, as I’ve been saying all week: Nothing — nothing — has changed about our One China policy, which is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, the Three Joint U.S.-PRC Communiqués, and the Six Assurances.  And we say it that way every time because it’s exactly consistent.

Now, we said that we oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo from either side.  We’ve also said we do not support Taiwan independence and that we expect cross-Strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means.  We’re also maintaining communication with Beijing.

As President Biden told President Xi, the Speaker’s visit was consistent with our One China policy, that she had a right to visit, and that a previous Speaker of the House has also visited Taiwan before without incident.

This is how we’re going to defend America’s national security interests and our values.  And that is how President Biden directed us to operate in the days ahead — with consistency and clarity and transparency.

And we’ll keep doing that — what we are doing — and we’re going to keep supporting cross-Strait peace and stability, because it matters — not just in the Strait, not just to Taiwan, but to the entire region.

With that, I’ll take some questions.

---

[1]  https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2022/08/04/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-karine-jean-pierre-and-nsc-coordinator-for-strategic-communications-john-kirby-5/

Q    And just very quickly on China.  Given what — China’s actions that you talked about at the top, does the administration believe it was a mistake for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to visit Taiwan?
MR. KIRBY:   We have said — we have said consistently that the Speaker had a right to go.
Q    But now there’s been action from China.
MR. KIRBY:  As Speaker of the House and a member of Congress, she — she had a right to go.  And I know we’re all focused on the stop in Taiwan and I — and, certainly, given the events of the last 12, 18 hours, understandably so — but she’s not just going to Taiwan.
I mean, she’s — she’s moved on now to visits in Japan and South Korea — two treaty allies.  Japan, in particular, deeply concerned about what’s going on.  We’ll let the Speaker talk about her travels and what she’s learned, what she’s heard, what her takeaways are.  I won’t — I won’t talk for her.
Members of Congress have every right to travel overseas, and that includes Taiwan.  And they have bo- — both — from both parties have just this year. And she’s — yes, she’s the Speaker of the House, but she’s also a member of Congress.  She has the right to go.  And our job was to make sure that she had a safe and secure visit; we did that.  We’re still in touch with her staff.  We’re still responsible for making sure the rest of her trip is safe and secure.  We’ll let her talk about it when she gets back.

Q    Thank you.

Q    Thanks, John.  On Griner, I know you said you can’t get into too many details here, but can you say if there are non-prisoner concessions on the table at all that you would be willing to consider?
MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to get into any more detail.

Q    Okay.  And then on China, is the President considering another call with President Xi at all, given these escalating tensions?
MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have any call on the schedule to talk to or to announce.

Q    Is that being considered at all?
MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to get ahead of the President’s schedule.  As I said in my opening statement, the lines of communication with China are still open at different levels, of course, but I won’t get ahead of the President’s schedule.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Just going to jump around.  Go ahead, Patsy.

Q    Thank you so much, John.  So you’ve explained what the U.S. is trying to do in terms of sending out military — the USS Reagan to the region to ensure, I assume —
MR. KIRBY:  She was already in the region.  Yeah.  But —

Q    Understood.  Okay.  So that — I assume that’s also part of keeping shipping routes and — open and safe.  I understand that the Taiwanese president is also saying that she’s in contact with U.S. allies to ensure that airports and seaports remain open.  Is that also part of the — what the administration is trying to do here?
And the other thing is, just to touch on the kinds of communications that you’re having with the Chinese government: Do you believe that, at this point, there is a diplomatic off- ramp for this crisis?
MR. KIRBY:  Well, we certainly would like to see the tensions deescalate.  And if that’s best done through diplomacy, the United States would fully support that.  We want to see the tensions come down.
I would submit to you that they can come down very easily by just having the Chinese stop these — these very aggressive military drills and flying missiles in and around the Taiwan Strait.  You don’t need diplomacy to just simply stop doing something that’s — that’s escalating the tensions and putting peace and security in the region at risk.
Look, the Ronald Reagan and her escort ships are a very capable strike group.  They’re there to monitor the situation.  They’ll — they’ll be there for a little bit longer than they were originally planned to be — to be there.
Again, I won’t get ahead of the ship’s schedule, but the President believed that — that it was the prudent thing to do: to leave her and her escort ships there just a little bit longer.

Q    Can we just — just to follow up, is there any kind of support that the U.S. is providing to Taiwan in terms of protecting it in the context of cybersecurity attacks?  I think that’s also something that the Taiwanese are concerned about.
MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, look, I — I — for lots of good reasons, we don’t talk about steps we take either unilaterally or bilaterally in cyberspace.
We are committed, as we have been now for decades, to Taiwan’s self-defense.  I’ll leave it at that.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Can you give us a sense of what Griner’s sentencing may mean for negotiations?  Her Russian lawyer had said that a deal wouldn’t be possible until after she was convicted and sentenced.  So now that that’s happened, is it more likely, you think, that we may see them willing to negotiate?  Essentially, does a conviction open new doors for negotiation?
MR. KIRBY:  That’s really up to the Russian side.  We’re still — we’re still open to having our proposal seriously and positively considered.  And if on the Russian side that means that they feel like they’re more empowered to do that, then so be it.
We want them to take the offer that’s on the table because it’s a good one, it’s a fair one, and it’ll help bring Paul and Brittney home.  And if — if this is what’s going to — it’s going to take to get them to — to “yes,” then, okay, let’s get to “yes”; let’s get them home.

Q    And it has been now almost a week since Secretary Blinken and Lavrov spoke over the phone.  Have you gotten any serious signs from Russia that they’re willing to negotiate?  Is there any glimmer of progress since then, in the last week?
MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to negotiate in public.  Conversations are ongoing at various levels, and I’ll just leave it at that.

Q    And just to follow up on Nancy’s question, what message do you think the Russians are trying to send to the U.S. by giving Brittney Griner so severe a sentence?
MR. KIRBY:  Again, I can’t speak for the Russian judge.  And — and your question presupposes that it’s a message-sending exercise.  Maybe it is; maybe it’s not.  As I said the —

Q    You think it’s possible it’s not?
MR. KIRBY:  Historically — historically, what we’ve seen is foreign-born citizens that are arrested and convicted of drug charges tend to get — just historically, anecdotally speaking — tend to get higher sentences, almost to the max, which in many cases is 10 years, in Russia, as opposed to Russian-born citizens of the country convicted of the same offense.  It’s just — it tends to be the case there.
So I — honestly, I just — I wish I could get inside the judge’s head; I can’t do it.  So I can’t define why he chose nine years.  As I said to Nancy, it’s a reprehensible sentence.  She shouldn’t have been on the — on trial to begin with.  But that — and that, again, that’s why we — I think that’s why you saw the President come out so strongly against this — this sham trial to begin with.

Q    But to be clear: You — do you think she’s being used as a political pawn here?
MR. KIRBY:  We think that Brittney and Paul Whelan are being wrongfully detained.  They’re being wrongfully detained.  They need to — to be let go.  They need to come home.  We’re going to keep working on that.
I — I cannot ascribe Russian motives or intent here.  I just — I just — it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to try to speculate what’s in their heads.
All I can do is tell you where President Biden is and the national security team: wrongfully detained, need to come home.  There’s a deal on the table.  Let’s make the deal.  Let’s get them home.

Q    In the way back?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right, Pete.  I’ll come back (inaudible), then Peter, and then — and then I’ll come back.

Q    Thank you.  Thanks, John.  Why is it that, over the last couple of months, President Biden has been so much tougher on Russia than he is on China?
MR. KIRBY:  I wouldn’t agree with the premise of the question, Peter.

Q    Well, I think just — when Russia was getting aggressive around Ukraine, the President was out every couple of days telling Putin, “Don’t do it.”  And now China is getting aggressive around Taiwan, and we’re not hearing anything like that from the President.
MR. KIRBY:  Oh, beg to differ.  We’ve been standing up here for almost a week, Peter, talking about our concerns about what China was preparing to do.  We put out declassified information that we saw what the Chinese playbook was going to be.
Look, I stood at another podium not long ago, and much of the same way we reacted then we’re reacting now, in terms of being honest and transparent about what’s going on and calling it out for what it is.
And then, today, we’re talking about exactly what we’re going to do to make sure we can help preserve a free and open Indo-Pacific.
So I’m — I’m afraid I just challenge the premise of your question.

Q    I know you said that there is not a call scheduled with Xi.  Is there a reason why?  Because President Biden has known him for decades.
MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.

Q    He’s got a lot of free time up there in the Residence this week.
MR. KIRBY:  He doesn’t have free time.  He — he’s —
Q    Is there a reason he can’t just pick up the phone and call?
MR. KIRBY:  He’s been working all the way through his illness, quite frankly, Peter.  So that’s a little bit insulting.
And as for a call —

Q    It’s not insulting to —
MR. KIRBY:  It is.  It is.

Q    — say that the — that someone who is isolating by themselves —
MR. KIRBY:  You suggested he has a lot of free time, as if he’s not doing anything.  And you know that’s not the case, Mr.  Doocy.
Now, look, as for a call with President Xi, I don’t have anything on the President’s schedule to speak to.
If ever the President felt like a call with President Xi was the appropriate way to respond or that it would — that it would have an effect and an outcome that he wants to achieve, he certainly would be willing to do that.  He’s talked to Xi now five times; it’s not like he’s afraid to pick up the phone and call President Xi.  And if there’s a — if a call is the right answer, I’m sure that President Biden will do that.  But I’m not going to get ahead of the President on this.
I do want to stress — I said it before, but I do think that your question begs me to say it again: The lines of communication are still open with Beijing, and we’re using those lines of communication.  And I think you’ll see that in days to come as well.  That’s really important.
And that’s one of the reasons why President Biden made that call a week or so ago, was to make sure — and you saw it in Karine’s readout — to make sure that those lines of communication stay open, and they are.

....

Q    John — yes — when you say that the U.S. is prepared — when you say that the U.S. is prepared to what — for what China will do, do you mean that you are prepared to engage militarily?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m saying we are prepared for what China may do.  And I think it probably wouldn’t be a good idea to go into a great level of detail on that.
Let me say that when I say we’re prepared for what China may do, it’s across all the tools of government power.  It’s not just about the military.
We have a robust military capability in the region.  We have strong alliances and partnerships in the region.  We also have economic throw-weight, right?  And we have diplomatic throw-weight.  There’s a lot of things that the United States can — can bring to bear if we feel like we need to.
But here’s the thing: We shouldn’t need to do it.  And it shouldn’t come to blows.  There’s no reason for this manufactured crisis to exist.  They’re — the Chinese have used Speaker Pelosi’s trip as a pretext.  Yes, they’re claiming it’s a protest.  I got it.  But it’s also a pretext to try to up the ante in tensions and to actually try to set a new status quo to get to a new normal where they think they can keep things at.
And my point in coming out here today was to make it clear that we’re not going to accept a new status quo and that it’s not just the United States, but the world will reject it as well.

Q    After that last call between President Biden and Xi, there were indications that a meeting between — between the two presidents may take place.  There’s — there was any room for that.  Given the current situation, do you think there’s a room for a meeting between the two presidents?
MR. KIRBY:  Nobody is ruling out the possibility for a meeting between the two presidents.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Phil, then Ed.

Q    There’s reporting that the Biden administration is lobbying against legislation that would designate Taiwan as a Major Non-NATO Ally.  Can you tell us if that’s accurate?
And as we move towards what President Biden has often described as an era of autocracy versus democracy, should we be strengthening ties with Taiwan by entering into such a designation?
MR. KIRBY:  I think we’re — with respect to this proposed legislation, I think we’re going to avoid too much comment right now.
We certainly appreciate and respect the role of Congress and, frankly, the support across the aisle this year and so many years in the past for support to Taiwan.  But I don’t think it behooves us to try to get ahead of some proposed legislation before it moves — it moves further on down the — down the ways.
I will only add that the Taiwan Relations Act, which is the law of the land, does provide the administration a lot of vehicles and venues.
And we get fixated on the — on the Taiwan Relations Act in terms of a security perspective and arms sales.  And those have continued under this administration, and they will continue under this administration.
But if you read the act, there’s an awful lot more to it than just — than just arm sales.  And we fully respect that law of the land — we’ll follow that law of the land.  It does provide, on its own, an awful lot of flexibility and authority for the administration to continue to support Taiwan, particularly in their self-defense, and — and we’re going to keep adhering to it.

Q    And then more — just a quick follow-up.  You mentioned this briefly about the canceled ICBM test.  Can you speak more generally to the decision not to move in that direction, to cancel that?  Was that the President’s decision?  And, I guess, can you put a little bit more meat on the bones in terms of lessening tensions right now?
MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, yeah.  First of all, it’s not canceled.  It’s only been postponed.  And it’s been postponed for a short period of time.  I’m not going to tell you what the date certain here is on the calendar, but there is a date certain.  And it’s — it’s just been postponed for — for a short period of time.  So, it’s still going to happen.
And because it’s not being postponed for an exorbitant amount of time, it’s not going to have, as I said, any effect on our nuclear readiness.  The — the decision came in light and in context of the tensions that we’re seeing right now, and they’re pretty escalated.  I mean, it’s — the temperature is pretty high.
And the President believed and the national security team believed that a strong, confident, capable nuclear power can afford to wait a couple of weeks for a test to make it clear — not just in word, but in deed — how serious we are when we say we have no interest in escalating the tensions.  We don’t think there should be a pretext for crisis or conflict.
And we’re not, as I said in my opening statement, we’re not seeking one.  And this decision to postpone for a short while is meant to prove indeed what we’re — what we’re saying in words about how serious we are.  It’s the responsible thing to do.  It’s the strong, confident thing to do.  And the President stands behind that.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And just a couple of more.
Ed and Sebastian.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Thanks, John.  So given the aggression that we’re seeing from China around Taiwan and the FBI Director today saying that China is the biggest threat to the U.S. — or the number one threat to the U.S. in the next 10 years, would the President then caution companies from expanding business or doing business in China?
MR. KIRBY:  We have been nothing but transparent with — with businesses about — and private corporations about our concerns regarding operations in or with China.  But they’re private companies and they make their own decisions, and we have to respect that.

Q    What about supply chains with the — with the activity going on around Taiwan?  How is that affecting our supply chains and will we have problems?
MR. KIRBY:  I don’t think we’ve seen any effects yet.  I mean, we’re only a few days into this.  So, it’s something we’re watching and certainly concerned about.
But we’ve also, I would add — thanks to COVID, we’ve done a lot of work, particularly in the last 18 months, to make more resilient our supply chains across a range of sectors.  Doesn’t mean everything’s fixed.  Doesn’t mean it’s perfect.  But we’ve done a lot of work in that regard.  So, we’ll just watch and see how this goes.  But there is a lot more resiliency in our supply chain capability now than there was, you know, a couple years ago.
(Cross-talk by reporters.)

Q    And one more on China.  You just, a few minutes ago, said that China is trying to set a new status quo, a new normal.  Could you elaborate on that?  How do you see — what do they exactly want to achieve by creating this crisis?
MR. KIRBY:  Well, you’ve seen them — you’ve seen them fly over the median line, you know, on several occasions in just the last 24 hours.  You’ve seen them now declare naval operating areas — exercise areas much closer to the island than they did 25 years ago.  You’ve seen them now fly at least 11 ballistic missiles in and around the Taiwan Strait, and apparently going — according to our Japanese allies, a couple of them — at least a couple of them landed in their economic exclusion zone, which means they most likely flew over the island.
You could see a scenario where they’re just — they’re just taking the temperature up, right?  They’re boiling the frog, right?  They’re taking — they’re taking the temperature up to a higher level, with perhaps the intention of maintaining that sort of intensity or at least being able to conduct those kinds of operations on a more frequent, regular basis going forward.
That’s — that’s — that’s a different status quo than the one that we had just a few days ago, just a week ago.  And we’re not going to —

Q    Are you concerned that they may take a military action against Taiwan?
MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to speculate for what the Chinese may or may not do.  We’re telling you what we’re seeing, and we’re telling you what we’re expecting.
We’re expecting more exercises, more bellicosity and rhetoric.  We’re expecting additional — additional incursions.  And we’ll see how this plays out.
As I said, there’s no reason for this to erupt into a crisis.  There’s no reason for this to come to blows.  And nobody wants to see that happen.
And I’ll tell you this, having operated a little bit at sea myself, the more hardware you have in close proximity like that with tensions as high as they are, the higher risk you get of miscalculations and mistakes.  And that is what could lead to something getting a lot more dangerous than it is right now.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay, we have to wrap it up. 

Q    So it’s not a crisis right now?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.  One last question.

Q    Mr. Kirby, can you clarify —

MR. KIRBY:  Who’s ask- —  who’s asking —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Inaudible.)

Q    Can you clarify whether —

Q    Thank you.

MR. KIRBY:  Yes, sir.

Q    — the White House is —

Q    You said that our policy —

Q    Can you clarify —

MR. KIRBY:  Hey —

Q    — towards China has been consistent —

MR. KIRBY:  Your name is Simon, right?

Q    Yeah, I really wanted —

MR. KIRBY:  Si- — Simon —

Q    — to ask you —

MR. KIRBY:  Simon.  Simon.

Q    — a question —

MR. KIRBY:  Simon.

Q    I’ve been trying to ask you this question —

MR. KIRBY:  Simon.

Q    If you’d allow me to ask you the question —

MR. KIRBY:  Sir, I’m going to — I’m going to call on this man.
Sir, listen now, I’ve been polite to you, but I expect a little bit of respect in return.

Q    I respect you.

MR. KIRBY:  You know where we are?  This is the White House Press Briefing Room —

Q    I know.  I respect you.

MR. KIRBY:  — and you need to be more respectful.
Q    And I’ve been raising my hand since.

MR. KIRBY:  I’m going to call on this reporter.

Q    Thank you.  You have described our policy —

Q    (Inaudible) the White House (inaudible) —

Q    — toward China as consistent and clear, but the U.S. policy toward Taiwan is also described as strategic ambiguity.  Don’t you think it’s sort of that ambiguity that has allowed tensions, like we’re seeing now, to have developed?
MR. KIRBY:  No, we would not agree with that at all.  No.

....

Q    — in Asia right now, does President Biden consider China to be an opponent or a competitor?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look — and Kirby said this and we’ve been saying this for the past couple of days — right? — more than a week.  And I’m going to answer it this way because this goes to why this has come up, which is the Speaker going to Taiwan.

You know, she has the right to go to Taiwan.  She has the right to travel wherever she wants.  She is the Speaker of the House.  She is a member of Congress.  We can — we will not ever tell her where to go.

And we’ve been really clear with — with China.  We’ve — we have said, “No policy changes at all.”  The One China policy stands.
And — and the President, just a week ago today, spoke to President Xi.  It was the fifth time that they spoke.  They have — continue to have an open — an open dialogue.

And so that is — I just want to make that really clear.  And just, you know, they’re — they’re the ones escalating here.

Q    Just — the relationship moving forward, though, would he consider China a competitor or an opponent of the United States?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, when we — when you think about — when you think about our economy, when you think about how we’re competing around the world, around the globe, you think about the CHIPS Act — right? — in the CHIPS and Science Act — one of the reasons we talked about making sure that that got done in a bipartisan way — we saw that happen just a couple of days ago — is we want to be able to compete, right?  We want to be able to compete with China.  And we want to be able to have those manufacturing jobs investment in — in the United States, and also strengthen our supply chain, make sure we strengthen our national security.

So, you know, as it — it relates to that, in that — in that — in that realm, you know, yeah, we want to be competitive as a country.

Go ahead.